A Texas man and skeptic of Barack Obamas eligibility to serve as president has posted a video on YouTube revealing two investigators, reportedly from the Secret Service, questioning him at his home.

Rudy Davis, known also as LoneStar1776″ on YouTube.com, posted video of the inquiry the day after he had uploaded another video in which he suggested Obama, after being convicted of treason for usurping the highest office the land, be executed for his crime.

When two men in dark suits showed up at his door the next day, Davis told them, I think I know why you guys are here.

Video of the exchange shows Davis explaining his belief that Obama is ineligible to be president and clarifying that he only wished the judicial system to execute Obama once he has been convicted in a court of law.

OK, the first investigator replied, but you dont mean to assassinate him?

Birther /börthör/ n. 1. A person who exhibits the audacity to read the U.S. Constitution, and then demands that his/her government actually obeys it. 2. A derogatory term developed and used by Leftists and Neo-Cons in a lame attempt to marginalize those who harbor the silly notions that Truth matters, and that Republics perish who refuse to uphold the Rule of Law.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

The Founders had the example of Charles I to work from (LOL). They chose wise and conservative language.

With the Florida move to remove dead and illegal voters from the roles disputed by DOJ, can any federal employee be considered but a crook unless they take forceful action to uphold the Constitution of the USA against their communist overlords?

8
posted on 06/01/2012 10:55:26 PM PDT
by MtnClimber
(To the left wrong is right, down is up and backward is "Forward")

Why did he answer all these questions? When they start asking about weapons and mental illness and criminal records, I would’ve told them I’m not answering these questions and that they can get a background check on me if they really need to know these things.

I feel sorry for the SS guys, being used by depserate criminal thugs to try and intimidate American Citizens, the SS guys are like babes, naive babies being made tools of a thugocracy. It will get worse so long as the criminal enterprise is running the federal oligarchy.

If Obama is not a citizen (not born here and his mom was apparently not old enough to confer that distinction upon her son), how can he be charged with treason? I don’t think he can be so charged. Other crimes maybe, but not treason.
Just my take on this.
Also, unlike the guy in the video, I am opposed to the death penalty generally, not because it’s cruel and unusual and certainly not because some of these animals don’t deserve it. I oppose it because, in practice, it violates the equal protection clause. As it is today, poor people get executed for committing the same crimes for which rich or affluent people serve time.
However, I do support the death penalty for treason. That’s a no brainer.

Very few claim he isn’t a citizen. They claim he isn’t a “natural-born citizen.”

The claim that his mother wasn’t old enough to bestow citizenship is, I believe, a misapplication of the relevant law. It makes no sense to claim that age of the mother would be the determining factor in whether a person is a citizen.

Don’t forget the libs making movies about killing G.W. while he was in office.
Were you to even write a post about offing the magic negro you’d be in jail and labeled a racist Zimmerman.
Holder and obammy and all the “czars” should be in Guantanamo, and not as visitors.
And while you’re at it ship out that shelf ass trash obozo’s married to also.

The relevant law —as I have seen it put-—when this person was born—wherever he was born— seems to have made the age of the parent-be it father or mother—male or female quite relevant.If that age stipulation has been removed it seems logical to me that the law —as written —at the time of birth ought still be the governing factor....and again the question is not is this person a citizen —but natural born,i.e. born of two parents who were themselves citizens.If the mother,by law had to be a certain age to confer citizenship —and the father never was a citizen then the child by law ought not be considered a citizen.There are other credible questions yet unanswered as to citizenship status that as a whole lead me to conclude under our written Constitution that person residing in the White House is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

The relevant section readsA child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.

She was 18 when it is reported that Zippo was born. There is no age requirement for domestically born children born in the US territory for the child to be born a Citizen. However if Sr and SAD were in fact married then the Citizenship of the child follows that of the father during that time period.

So if we are to believe Zippo's narrative then he isn't a US Citizen.

21
posted on 06/02/2012 4:47:39 AM PDT
by GregNH
(If you are unable to fight, please find a good place to hide.)

The law is relevant, IF and only IF, Obama was NOT born in the U.S.A., which he wasn't. He was born in Kenya. His Kenyan birth certificate was entered into evidence along with an affidavit in a court case. His Hawaiian BC has been proved to be a fake, this one has not been so proved. Many people/relatives have publicly claimed his Kenyan birth.

I understand, quite well, that just showing that he is not an Article II “Natural Born Citizen” is sufficient to disqualify him as president, I insist that ALL the details become known and if he is not even a legal citizen, that he be deported. The constitution and the law must be vindicated.

23
posted on 06/02/2012 5:01:52 AM PDT
by faucetman
( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)

“My personal opinion is that natural born is an alternate way of saying citizen at birth.”

You are partly correct.

There are only TWO types of citizens (NOT THREE).

1. Citizen by (at) birth. (native)

2. Citizen by statute. (naturalized).

“Natural Born Citizen”, (poorly named, hence the confusion) is NOT a different TYPE of citizen. A Natural Born Citizen is a “citizen at birth”, but also has to meet additional, specific, constitutional requirements to be president. “Natural Born Citizen” is just a “term” used to identify someone who meets these special constitutional requirements for eligibility to the office of president (Article II) and vice president (Article XII).

The John Jay letter to George Washington expressing his concerns about foreign influences over our military through the Command in Chief, the president, helped to change the proposed language in the constitution to include the “term” “Natural Born Citizen”.

If the “term” “Natural Born Citizen” was no different from native citizen or just citizen, there would be no need for clause 5. Also it is a term only rarely used. It is not interchangeable with “native born citizen”. While NBC is used incorrectly in various lower court rulings, it is specifically spelled out in the unanimously decided in Minor v Happersett 88 u.s. 162.

It is also clear that the framers intended the term “Natural Born Citizen” to remain a specific term by repealing the act of 1790 with the act of 1795 correcting the misuse of the term “Natural Born Citizen” by eliminating it from the 1795 act, replacing it with “citizen”.

30
posted on 06/02/2012 6:22:20 AM PDT
by faucetman
( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)

Doing research on “natural born citizen” using sources that predate 2007 will show a clear understanding of the phrase. There is no ambiguity or misunderstanding inherent concerning natural born. Those sources will clearly show that Obama, Romney, Santorum, McCain, Jindal and Rubio are not natural born citizens.
There have been many changes to online sources which attempt to subvert the constitution and the law. Those making such changes should receive harsh punishment. Those paying for the changes, Soros, should be fined hundreds of millions of dollars

I wonder if they will go terrorize his dad in the nursing home for revenge. I did not see the guy’s other youtube videos so I don’t know what he said that justified this harassment and intimidation by the secret service.

The leftists were permitted to threaten Bush without a problem because radicals are not officially named by DHS as domestic terrorists. Christians are. People who advocate for the constitution are. People who are against global governance and rule are. Those who vote for third party candidates are. Vets are. Those who prepare for emergencies are.

GOPe have helped the leftists in congress and in DHS to classify their own voters as domestic terrorists. Dems rabidly protect their voters from “McCarthyism”. GOPe loves their voters getting targeted and harassed because conservatives are the only political and social enemies they fight against.

“Threatening a person is a crime” so says one SS, which should have been replied “Except for the New Black Panther Party Bigots who call for sedition, wanted dead or alive bounties with Zimmerman right? Where’s Eric Holder your Attorney General..oh, that’s right, too busy sending guns to Mexico that got two law enforcement killed”.

The questions they already know like how many siblings, ever been arrested, etc are to gauge his ability to deceive and lie.

Shouldn’t have answered any questions at all. Provide ID if necessary. Questions should have been met with other questions like, “What evidence has been presented that makes you believe he’s President? You have job to do huh? What about your Constitutional oath against enemies foreign and domestic and illegal orders?”

Next we’ll see 5 agents sent on these visits.....one black, one white, one Asian, one Hispanic, and one Native American. I suppose they could economize by profiling on the last name of the offender, but, you know, that just isn’t right.

-- The claim that his mother wasn't old enough to bestow citizenship is, I believe, a misapplication of the relevant law. --

It's a correct statement of law if his birth was not on US soil, and the mother is married to a person who was not a US citizen. In that circumstance, the age and duration of US residency of the mother are the determining factors in whether the child is a US citizen.

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.

-- The claim that his mother wasn't old enough to bestow citizenship is, I believe, a misapplication of the relevant law. --

Oh, another point. If I understand the argument of the "anti-birthers," the geographic location of birth doesn't control the outcome either. The logic, as I understand it, is a person is either born a citizen, or not. If born a citizen, then the person is a natural born citizen.

The geographic location of birth matters in Obama's case, because Stanley Ann Dunham could not possibly have spent five years after the age of fourteen, resident in the US. She wasn't nineteen years old when she gave birth to Obama. But in a different hypothetical case, say, make Stanley Ann Dunham twenty years old and five years in the US before giving birth to Obama in Kenya, he would be a citizen, and according to the "only two categories" proponents, he would necessarily be a natural born citizen because he was born a citizen.

-- I wonder how the fact that it was a bigamous marriage might affect things? --

That same link says if the birth is out of wedlock ...

A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person's birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person's birth. The mother must be genetically related to the person in order to transmit U.S. citizenship.

Some anti-birthers will argue that the fact he is a citizen at birth makes him a natural born citizen; others make a distinction that citizenship is conferred by statute, rather than by a judicial decision (Wong Kim Ark); giving the courts the power to define Natural Born Citizen however they decide, but not allowing Congress the same power.

I was wondering how many of those fired in the Colombia Prostitution scandal are even guilty? Maybe, Obama and gang just wanted to get rid of some agents they didn't think would do their dirty work or would look the other way if it was too dirty?

I do pity the whole group. Working for Reagan, Bush I and Bush II must have been a great honor, but Clinton and Obozo? People who don't respect the sacrifice or job of the Secret Service?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.